Remarry If Commit Adultery

Do you have any thoughts on WHY God allows a man to remarry when he divorces his wife who committed adultery but says that an innocent wife whose husband committed adultery must not remarry after divorce?

the time of our Lord's return is getting shorter and the church should use all the resources it has at its disposal to spread the gospel.

There are many (and many "good" people) destined to the fires of hell. To elect someone that has little talent or gifts as a elder or deacon and pass over someone that has been divorced years ago is an evil that many in the church will be judged. Such serve the devil in their twisting of the Scripture.

Olde Bob Jones III once stated that most fundamentals are NOT born again Christians. Would that be because the gospel is not preached?

I teach Sunday School at the Bible church that does not discriminate against those who have been victims of another's sinfulness.

I sincerely appreciate your words. But I expect they will be very hard to digest for MOST church attending wives of today, to forgive on a level where they can receive an adulterous husband with the same level of reverence, as shown in Ephesians 5, especially for those wives who have given themselves only to their husbands.

Most wives have not been taught to live completely for God, to suffer many things in order to please Him.

Yet, to those wives who can really do this, I expect God will be immensely pleased with their level of sacrifice.

My thoughts is initially based on the male being the head of the house, the fact that a man of God in all his ways that loved his wife like the church and as god intended, it able to marry again because of fornication or Adultery in the marriage. A woman however, is subjected to carrying the babies and it is not supported that a woman should have another husband while the head of her home is absent, or if he committed a sin basically because children in the womb should be unless death from one man, he then has the right to be able to come back if he has repented fully to the wife if she pleases. This is proved through biblical teachings based on moral ethic's and a social and spiritual order.

My 1st wife has dietary problems and got hooked on amphetamines, left me with 2 preschool age children to raise by myself. She ran off with one that she met in a sanitarium. I remarried after 6 years and that marriage lasted 35 years. Those that forbid remarriage of innocent party promote fornication and uncleanness especially among those who are young.It is not good that man be alone as not everyone has the gift of being a enunch. Nor is it good for a family to be without both parents.

says that an innocent wife whose husband committed adultery must not remarry after divorce?

Please cite the Scripture for this.

Mat 19:9 Says the ONLY LAWFUL reason to divorce your wife is if she commits fornication. If you divorce her for any other reason, 1.) you CAUSE HER to become an adulteress, 2.) you have committed adultery, 3.) the next man to marry your adulterous ex-wife commits adultery.

If you divorce her for the only lawful reason, you are free to marry any available woman, EXCEPT: a.) those ex-wives who were divorced for lawful reasons, and b.) those ex-wives whose husbands divorced then unlawfully, causing them to be adulteresses.

YES, (1 Corinthians 11:9), "neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

Nicole _Lacey your spot on Divorce is only permitted based on the points you have both read and projected its better to stand alone with the truth than with many on the wrong path to unrighteousness. Let the word be true and man a liar O.O

Nicole said, "No Orthodox Jew is reading the Gospels."Actually, Nicole I knew one. He has since gone to his reward, but he read both Old and New Testaments (including the Gospels) every day. He remained an Orthodox Jew until his death.--Monk_Brendan on 11/29/15

Sorry, let me rephrase my statement.

NO Orthodox Jew BELIEVES in the Gospels.

He can read the NT, without believing in it.

As some Conservative Christians read the Koran just to understand the Muslims' thinking, but they don't intend to convert.

If they believe in the Koran, they are no longer a Conservative Christian

Of course, St. Luke was a Gentile--or did you know that?Some Orthodox Jews have joined ...---Cluny on 11/20/15

There is no evidence Luke was not of Israel. The scriptural marks and evidence are that he was of Israel. 1st of all by Christ own choice, Matt 10:6/15:24. Lukes knowledge of Israel, Israels laws, Israels temple and personal facts of Mary. Gentile was never a word uttered by Christ, prophet or any Apostle. It didn't exist. It is wise for you to be brief like you always are with no facts just conjecture of men. You gradually expose your ignorance when you venture out of the ortho/catholic ancient ruts.Just because a "jew" says he is one does not confirm a fact. Wow. Rev 2:9/Rev 3:9.

According to Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:8-9,11-12 the man also commits adultery if he remarries.Also, a little bit of research reveals that Scripture was written by those of Jewish decent (Israelites from the lineage of Abraham) and the NT was written by Jews as well .. Ones who knew the Messiah had come.Jesus was a Jew. He was born into the line of David as foretold in the prophets and the lineage of Judah is also from the line of Abraham, the father of the Jews. See Matthew 1:1-17 and 2:1-2 and also Romans 11:1-31.

I know Obama thinks he is a King, but he isn't.---Nicole_Lacey on 11/11/15

Good people like StrongA from Canada, perhaps with a Canadian mindset, have a twisted idea what a "Public Servant" is. Everyone always sees clearly after the damage is done. Israel documented a whole book of it. Luk_22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the heathens/nations/ethnos exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

Jesus is a Jew.All Christians are followers of a Jewish Rabbi!---Mark_Eaton on 11/18/15

Jesus was not a "jew". He was of the House and lineage of Judah. Jew was not a word in his day nor was "gentile". Few Christians today follow Jesus including yourself. Referring only to Paul. Who was a Benjamite Rabbi. Who preached to the "lost sheep", put away, scattered, dispersed, "ethnos" of the North House of Israel. Familiar with the North House to which he belonged. Paul refers to the prophets...why don't you? Rom_9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people, her beloved, which was not beloved.(Which is the divorced Nth House)

So, unless you are speaking about a converted Jew who is NOW CHRISTIAN, the NT isn't Jewish Scripture TO THEM.---Nicole_Lacey on 11/18/15

I am speaking to all Believers, Jew and Gentile.

We as Gentiles are grafted into a faith that is essentially a Jewish faith. Paul says to us that the gospel is to the Jew first, then the Greek.

As a Believer, I do not see the Scriptures as Jewish and Christian. I see the Scriptures of God, the same God of the Jews and Christians. The non-Messianic Jews will really be surprised when they meet their God, Jesus!

that the Gospels were written in black and white for almost two millenia, and people had no problems understanding from "Jesus said XYZ"..---StrongAxe

WRONG!1500 years, not 2000.

The first Bible where VERY COLORFUL and REAL Gold was used for ink in certain sections of the Bible.It took years for Monks to complete just ONE BIBLE.

Now the 'black and white' print occurred during the START of the printing press age to SPEED up making copies of the Bible for everyone and making it cheaper.Color printing was invented later. Then someone Decided to copy the Monks centuries ago to display Jesus' Words (God made Flesh) in red.

So the Words are placed in red to make sure everyone understanding: these Words are from the Son of Man.

It's odd then, that the Gospels were written in black and white for almost two millenia, and people had no problems understanding from "Jesus said XYZ" that Jesus did, in fact, actually say "XYZ", but somehow people lost the ability to understand this in the past century?

But what does having a body have to do with it? Jesus's specialness was because he was God (just as God was in Genesis 1:1), NOT because he had a body (as we all have).

Okay so using your logic, if killing God's Agent is bad, killing His Son is worse.

You said: Okay so using your logic, if killing God's Agent is bad,killing His Son is worse.

This is still getting far afield of the original question (which you still haven't answered). Why are Jesus's own words in the New Testament considered so important as to be changed into red, when God's own words in the Old Testament are not? Is God less important than Jesus?

This whole long discussion started about why the words of Jesus in the NT were changed to red, while the words of God in the OT weren't. You still haven't answered how "God said 'Let there be light'" doesn't qualify.

I said: Why was killing the prophets much worse that ordinary murder?

You said: Because they are Prophets of God.

Exactly. Because they were God's agents, it made it much worse.

So you admit killing the Son of Man ISN'T the same as killing the Prophets.

You said: Because one comes from the MOUTH of God, and the other came from the Mouth of a Man who heard it from the Mouth of God and is Repeating what he heard?

Why are these different? If a prophet is acting as God's agent, when he speaks for God, it is exactly as if God is speaking himself. This is the nature of agency. If an ambassador negotiates a treaty, it is EXACTLY the same as if a king does it.

And no scripture we have is actually "from the mouth of God", because it is translations of copies of transcriptions of summaries, written by the hands of prophets and apostles.

You are still missing my point. We don't have Jesus speaking to us. All we have is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John effectively saying "Thus said Jesus". If their declaring Jesus's words is no different than Elijah declaring God's words, why are one in red, and the other in black?

No. The King James translators translated the various scriptures into English before 1611. The red letter versions came MUCH later, and used the same words as before. The red letters were added by PUBLISHERS, not TRANSLATORS.

I KNOW you KNOW God's Words are not on the same level as His creatures.

Yes, but scripture uses the same grammar for both.

when someone calls for the President and REPEATS his words they say: "I am calling on behalf of the President. He said....."

Yes, as the prophets said "This saith the LORD...", but nobody put THOSE words in red, did they?

You wrote: Even the Translators of the Bible realized Jesus being God means His Words needed to be separated from the rest.

No translators treated Jesus's words differently than any others. It's only later publishers that changing his words to red. But offly, they didn't do the same to OT "thus saith the LORD: ..."

you try to use Paul's, James' or Peter's words to go against Jesus very own Words. Why?

Paul's letters are the word of God or they aren't. If they aren't, call him a heretic and burn them all. But if they are, but seem to disagree with Jesus, one must study why. You can't have it both ways.

Nichole Lacey, where exactly did Jesus say no divorce? I think you misquoted the previous verses you posted. You quoted them as saying "divorce", when accurate texts actually say "put away", not "divorce". ---Jed on 10/10/15

Nope,'put away and divorce is the same thing'

I'll repost what I said:

Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

As you can see Jesus is speaking about MEN remarrying after divorce is committing an adultery.Jesus doesn't allow DIVORCE. Which made His Disciples suggest it is better NOT to marry ---Nicole_Lacey on 10/8/15

Nichole Lacey, where exactly did Jesus say no divorce? I think you misquoted the previous verses you posted. You quoted them as saying "divorce", when accurate texts actually say "put away", not "divorce".

Nicole_Lacy I was beginning to think I am the only person to whom it was given couldn't have said it better no Usurping just pure unadulterated TRUTHS. So I can sit down I am not the only one that can read plain black and white ENGLISH praise The Most High God for agreement Xxx

So many people here misquoting scripture saying "divorce" where the Bible actually says "put away". They are not the same. Putting away is abandonment or neglect without divorce. Try rereading those scriptures in proper context and it makes complete logical sense. Of course if a husband abandons his wife without giving her a divorce and marries another he is committing adultery.

Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

I think you are confusing Jesus with Paul.

As you can see Jesus is speaking about MEN remarrying after divorce is committing an adultery.

Please give Chapter and verse stating what you wrote.

Jesus doesn't allow DIVORCE. Which made His Disciples suggest it is better NOT to marry.

Jesus DIDN'T correct them, but told themV11-12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by othersand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. THE ONE WHO CAN ACCEPT THIS SHOULD ACCEPT IT.

Rita, and Clara, let us examine what the scriptures say:Mt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (KJV)-Here is an un-scriptural divorce. Neither had committed adultery so if the man puts away his wife so if she remarries she is committing adultery.

The woman was made for the husband not the husband for the wife, the masculine is first not the feminine, which is a biblical order of things and therefore we are to be faithful towards the husband man of god in his entirety and respect sexual intercourse as the ruling factor to which means one husband and one wife till death. The permission is not to belittle the wife it is there for protection as the Most High is the head of Christ and Christ the head of the husband, the wife comes under Christ, when husband is absent. The husband is under Christ.

Do you have any thoughts on WHY God allows a man to remarry when he divorces his wife who committed adultery ... ---Rita_H on 5/12/15

GOD gives example in his marriage to Israel.

Jer_3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers, yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

Isa_48:11...my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Law: 1Co_7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth,...

The Return: Heb 8:8Christ dies cleaning Israels adulteries. No broke laws and a New Marriage Covenant.

Sorry. The Bible does not say a women cannot remarry. Where did that come from?

Both the man and women who divorce if neither one have committed adultery. Neither one can remarry.

This is not a law from the Old Testament. Jesus was talking about a law from the OT but changed the way it was understood. Some of the Jews thought a man could divorce a woman for any reason he felt like. But Jesus was saying that is wrong. Read the context of the passages.

As for the law being done away with. Paul says that is a lie.

Romans 3:31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Bill "So, why are people so sure that sexual sinning is where He draws the line?" I have absolutely no idea but it always seems to be that way, doesn't it?

However, my question was not about the seriousness of this particular sin (as compared with others) but was about why the woman who has not committed 'it' seems to always come off as the 'loser' (where reputation is concerned).

Putting together these 2 verses (Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:12) we can see that if he divorces her for ANY reason (other than HER adultery) and she remarries she is considered an adulteress anyway. Likewise if she divorces him (for any reason - even HIS adultery it seems) she is still the adulteress if she remarries.

In other words it would appear that a woman who remarries, regardless of her husband's behaviour, is an adulteress BUT he can 'put her away' and remarry with no blemish to his character.

Am I mis-reading this? I have another verse in mind also but cannot find it at the moment. I'll add it later if I can find it.